kofeiiniturpa;n9754581 said:
Oh but it is if the implied experience and the practical experience are at odds, which they usually are due to the ideals striving for opposite directions and both being wanted in -- the former towards character control and the latter towards player control. Then you get confused shit like Fallout 3.
Exactly. And since CDPR
has confirmed real time fully under player control gameplay, that means rpg mechanics have to be different than how they are handled in crpgs.
kofeiiniturpa;n9754581 said:
This assumes repetition of those former titles is suggested, and that their faults can not be helped.
Given the context it also implies it is insane to struggle against trends and think outside the box because it always leads to your example games anyway.
Seems like a hopeless situation, but none of that is really true. Aside from Morrowind, all of those examples attempted to be a "shooter with stats", that does not need to be the case here.
The game need not be designed such that your crosshair is representative of anything else but the general direction you look at, and aiming and firing a weapon can work differently. (for example)
It's not written in stone that those examples of yours are some kind of pinnacle of "traditionalesque" RPG design in any respect that would need to be copied.
It might be insane to repeat and expect things to change, but it is also dullminded to think there are no options and then not even try to find them.
You are assuming that there are always different solutions to same problems that can have as good results as result of "sheer human ingenuity".
And how many examples do you need more than what've had in the past two decades? Fifty years? Two centuries?
kofeiiniturpa;n9754581 said:
The game need not be designed such that your crosshair is representative of anything else but the general direction you look at, and aiming and firing a weapon can work differently. (for example)
Again: clear incoherency and contradiction. Give player direct, real time control over every actions and then separate shooting mechanics through something else. It leads to extremely clumsy style of gameplay, proven again and again and again.
Dicerolls or % chance over basic actions which are directly under player control, have no place in action gameplay...there can be abolutely no if's or but's, could be or should be, on this.
No matter how you try and tweak it, what it comes down to is: they are two
completely opposite design principles.
You can see this clearly in comparison between Morrowind:
Now take a look at Gothic, where you control your character just like in any action game), but character progression in skill changes actual attack animations, becoming more faster and fluid.
Exactly the same is with Mass Effect compared to Deus Ex.
kofeiiniturpa;n9754581 said:
There's no actual standard on "how much" control the player actually needs to have with those perspectives. It is nowadays just automatically assumed that it is all of it, because so many other games do it that way
It is not "automatically assumed", it is completely logical as third/first person perspective are closer to our own and as result more immersive ( that includes every human that has ever lived). And that means rpg mechanics have to be more immersive and logically integrated into direct gameplay as well.
Crpgs ( like BG II or Fallout II) and their base mechanics were almost entirely played in isometric perspective so the player did not have as much intricate control over character's actions and character progression ( in certain skill) had more control.
Suhiira;n9755291 said:
So you don't see a problem with a game where dialog options and skill success/failure are determined by CHARACTER skills/traits/alignment/class and combat is in the hands of the PLAYER?
As to the rest of it ... I'm perfectly fine with people enjoying COD ... I just have no personal desire to play it ... nor do I want to see an RPG ... ANY RPG ... utilize FPS mechanics because the very concept of RPG is shattered when skill use (and yes, combat is a skill) success/failure it taken from the character and given to the player.
P.S. And yes, I'm ignoring all the games out there that call themselves RPGs (usually because that have some sort of leveling or skill selection system) but really aren't.
Your statement is extremely similar to how religious people see their sacred truth/dogma..some kind of eternal, everlasting dogma, this-is-the-only-way-how-things-should -be, that is and always will remain the same.
But whole human history very clearly shows it is actually nothing more than product of cultural circumstances of their time... and no matter how they like to pretend otherwise, it Always changes.
Same is true here.
Action rpgs combine player and character skill together that, for a lot of players, creates a more immersive and engaging experience.
This is not "dumbing down", simply rpg mechanics being adapted to a different format. For example:Souls series have more complex mechanics and variety of builds than Fallout and Baldur's Gate combined ( and they are not even full blown designed as rpgs)...there is no inherent "depth" to any of this types of games, only how their systems are designed.
Now you can say, that these types of games are not
for you and that is perfectly fine. But CDPR has never designed that type of game and they made it clear they're not aiming to do it here.
